“John Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.”

John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, converted to Islam while working in Saudi Arabia, states former FBI agent, John Guandolo. John Guandolo wrote the first Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI. Watch the detailed story in this explosive interview.

Brennan “marvelled at the majesty of the hajj and the holy two mosques” while he was the station chief of the CIA in Soddy Barbaria.

This is the turd who told usÂ that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”, “jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam”and the same Brennan called for a stop to “Iran bashing.”

He has helped strip language about “radical Islam” and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to “violent extremism.” When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what the terrorists themselves say.

Brennan’s Feb. 13, 2010 address to a meeting at the Islamic Center at New York University, facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), provided an insight into his views on Islam, a faith which he said during the speech had “helped to shape my own world view.”

Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to see Islam not how it is often misrepresented, but for what it is – how it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.”

During his time as a White House advisor, Brennan displayed a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.

Organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet for Brennan’s argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by religious terms, including “jihadist.” In doing so, Brennan waded into theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.

“As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said. “We’re trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance. It’s the reason why I don’t use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain’t gonna give it to them.”

Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan’s views about using religious references like “jihad” have been uttered repeatedly and consistently. “President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term ‘jihad,’ which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.

Brennan’s interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how the term has been consistently understood, especially by the intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.

In a pamphlet titled “Jihad,” al-Banna wrote: “Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one’s ego. This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah’s way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition …”

Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna’s successor in defining Islamist thought, clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should not be fought merely in a defensive manner.

“Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam is not a ‘defensive movement’ in the narrow sense which today is technically called a ‘defensive war.’ This narrow meaning is ascribed to it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the concept of Islamic Jihaad,” Qutb wrote in his book Milestones. “It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods.”

Even Brennan’s NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA’s official magazine Islamic Horizons notes that “jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against the evil situation with the intention of changing it,” that “anyone killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise,” and that “a believer who participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not.”

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad. In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends is the case with Israel.

These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan’s host, ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” In addition, the federal judge in the case found “ample evidence” connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.

Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy. Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb’s writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated against using terms like “Islamic terrorism” since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”

Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists. Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.

During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots. “Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country,” he said. “So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another.”

The White House invited al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the FBI’s use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in “legitimate resistance.”

After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration’s policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. “Mr. Brennan made two important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC’s government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington,” an MPAC statement said. Among them, “He rejected the label of ‘jihadist’ to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism.”

Terrorists Disagree

While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam. Asserting that religious motivation doesn’t exist does nothing to lessen the threat.

When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo’s mother asked her son what would drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct.

6 thoughts on ““John Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.””

Thanks for xposing the 0bama regime and cohorts like Brennan – their techniques of language distortion for propaganda purposes is Orwellian. And sadly it works for them and our enemies- I never thought I would live to see USA so fully infiltrated at the highest levels by such dangerous people

Dear friends and others,
Why are we supprised that Athiests or religios people conver to Islam/? If these people had dicovered the Grace of God which Christ Jesus has offered to all that will put theit faith in Him, they would never convert to other faith’s, After all , “All power in haven and earth and under the earth is given to me,” – Jesus said.

CIA director nominee John O. Brennan took heat during a confirmation hearing yesterday but not on the issues that matter most to America’s survival.

The nature of the struggle between the United States and the rest of Western civilization with totalitarian, irredentist Islam, was barely touched upon during Brennan’s confirmation hearing. Distressingly, Brennan is an intellectually vapid, double-talking bureaucrat and leading Obama administration apologist for Islamic terrorism who has exonerated radical Islamists again and again.

But instead of asking Brennan about his softness on terrorism, senators focused on the U.S. use of drone strikes abroad against terrorist targets. Despite his apparent inability to comprehend the nature of our Islamist enemies and the threat they pose to America’s democratic values, Brennan now serves as the Obama White House counter-terrorism and “assassination czar.”

Brennan is regarded as the architect of the administration’s overseas drone program that targets terrorists. President Obama has bragged about personally designating targets for assassination on his so-called kill list.

Although the drone program has scored some major successes, including the instant cremation of senior al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, squeamish senators raked Brennan over the coals regarding the controversial program. Although an enemy combatant, al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen.

“It’s the idea of giving any president unfettered power to kill an American without checks and balances that’s so troubling,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore). “Every American has the right to know when their government believes it’s allowed to kill them.”

Wyden said he’s worried that Obama’s Department of Justice is “not following through” on making available “any and all” opinions on the legality of the drone-enabled killings. The Obama administration allowed senators to view classified papers explaining the legal rationale for the assassinations but the lawmakers said they wanted more. Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) complained about the limited access, saying “our staff was banned from seeing it.”

Brennan defended the drone strikes. “We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative,” he said, adding that drone attacks are ordered to save lives, not to punish terrorists for past misdeeds.

During the Bush administration Brennan defended the use of water-boarding against terrorists. In the Obama era Brennan has flip-flopped, repeatedly calling water-boarding “reprehensible” and claiming that he previously raised “personal objections” to it.

At yesterday’s hearing he again characterized the practice as “reprehensible” and said, despite growing evidence to the contrary, that it is “not clear” whether water-boarding has yielded useful information.

When questioned, Brennan robotically regurgitated what he was said many times before. “We are at war with al-Qaeda,” he said.

But Brennan wasn’t challenged on various statements that suggest he is so rabidly politically correct that he doesn’t grasp the true nature of America’s Islamist enemies. Indeed the CIA nominee is part of the same crowd that accuses Americans of being bigoted “Islamophobes” for not obediently adhering to the Left’s party line on Islam.

In a 2010 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan said it was incorrect to use the words “jihad” or “jihadists” to refer to the war that al-Qaeda and its allies are waging against the U.S.

In the Obama administration, officials refuse to “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community….”

He said it would be “counterproductive” to use the term jihad because doing so “play[s] into the false perception” that the “murderers” leading war against the West do so to on behalf of a “holy cause.” Calling it jihad, in other words, validates the terrorists’ justification for terrorism and propagates “the lie” that “the United States is somehow at war against Islam,” he said.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), has applauded Brennan and Obama for following its recommendations by avoiding the word Islamist. “Islamist is a stealth slur,” according to CAIR. “It exists as a piece of coded language.”

Brennan is also friendly to Iran and in 2008 called on U.S. officials to “cease public Iran-bashing.” (Investigative reporter Patrick Poole has compiled an excellent partial list of Brennan’s outrageous comments.)

Yesterday’s hearing was repeatedly interrupted by screaming protesters, including activists from Code Pink, who must deem Brennan insufficiently friendly to America’s enemies. Student interns from the group receive college credit for disrupting congressional hearings.

Brennan is part of President Obama’s Islamist-appeasement dream team, alongside defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel with his suspicious ties to Islamist Iran, and pathological anti-American John Kerry as secretary of state. None of this is a great surprise coming from an administration that has been infiltrated by Islamist operatives.

To read and order a copy, click here.

Brennan’s nomination is yet more confirmation of the Obama administration’s suicidal approach to the Global War on Terror, which the Obama administration rhetorically downgraded to the empty euphemism “Overseas Contingency Operations.”

Brennan embraces the Obama administration’s view on Islamist groups worldwide. The administration’s counter-terrorism strategy consists of rolling the dice and backing allegedly “moderate” Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the blind hope of reducing the appeal of groups such as al-Qaeda that work outside normal political processes.

Somehow these “moderate” groups and some formerly extremist groups, once they grab the reins of governmental power, will change their beliefs and begin to act more responsibly, doing things that redound to the benefit of America and its allies.

Obama officials refuse to recognize the obvious fact that radical Islam is at war with the United States. They stubbornly insist that only al-Qaeda and its affiliates are waging war against America, while refusing to acknowledge that al-Qaeda is just one player in a larger ideological conflict with totalitarian Islam. Domestically, the administration routinely refuses to label obvious Islamic terrorist attacks as such, preferring to call incidents such as the mass shooting by Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood as incidents of workplace violence.

As Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, has written:

[D]uring John Brennan’s tenure at the White House, the Obama administration actually promulgated guidelines ensuring that, henceforth, “countering violent extremism” training materials and trainers paid for by the Homeland Security Department and used by any government agency – federal, state or local – must effectively be approved by these “community partners.” That means we are now allowing agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization sworn to our destruction, to determine our understanding and awareness of the threat they and their fellow Islamists pose to the rest of us.

JOHN BRENNAN, CONVERT TO ISLAM, DIRECTOR OF CIA?????
ARE YOU COTTON PICKING CRAZY?
Obama chose muslims in homeland security and what happened? NO SECURITY FOR USA.
ALL CRIMINAL ILLEGALS (BECAUSE UNARMED INVASION IS CRIMINAL) ARE LOOSED UPOJN AMERICA . OBAMA IS A SERIOUS SECURITY RISK AND WILL BE THE DEATH OF USA.

JOHN BRENNAN, CONVERT TO ISLAM, DIRECTOR OF CIA?????
ARE YOU COTTON PICKING CRAZY?
Obama chose muslims in homeland security and what happened? NO SECURITY FOR USA.
ALL CRIMINAL ILLEGALS (BECAUSE UNARMED INVASION IS CRIMINAL) ARE LOOSED UPOJN AMERICA . OBAMA IS A SERIOUS SECURITY RISK AND WILL BE THE DEATH OF USA.
Has all of Congress been admitted to the LOONY BIN?